Religious Liberty

Believe it or not, the Little Sisters of the Poor are back at the U.S. Supreme Court still trying to defend their religious liberty from the burdens that states continue to impose on them following the enactment of the Affordable Care Act (commonly known as Obamacare). Today, the U.S. Supreme Court will hear arguments in their case, Little Sisters of the Poor v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. The Supreme Court is broadcasting the arguments live, via conference during the Covid-19 lockdown period. Click here to listen to oral arguments that will be transmitted by C-Span starting at 10 AM today.

Concerned Women for America will be joining Becket, who represents the Sisters, and other pro-religious liberty organizations in a virtual rally, starting at 8:45 AM. The theme is a simple one that has carried us throughout the years fighting for these poor sisters, “Let Them Serve.” Click here to join in!

To refresh your memory, the Sisters run 30 health care facilities for the elderly poor in the United States — from nursing homes to intermediate care to residential or assisted living and other independent-living facilities. All members of their order disregarded worldly comforts, taking vows of poverty, chastity, obedience, and hospitality, in order to serve the Lord and their neighbors. The Little Sisters of the Poor actually maintain a tradition of begging, demonstrating a life of true dependence on faith.

That is why it has been so infuriating from the beginning that the Obama Administration insisted that these sisters violate their religious beliefs and provide health insurance covering contraception and abortifacients. The Sisters won their case at the Supreme Court, which required the federal government to accommodate the Sisters.

The Trump Administration also broadened the scope of religious liberty protections, hoping to put an end to the issue finally. But several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey, sued the Federal government, saying the protections were too broad.

The Sisters were then forced to intervene in the lawsuit once again, asking the courts to let the Trump Administration implement the religious protections that will finally protect their religious liberties.

It is a simple ask that we are hoping the Supreme Court will quickly uphold, telling states to stop harassing people of faith.

In this Easter season, I have been thinking about the importance of redemption. Over the years, by virtue of circulation in political circles, I have known personally some people involved in public scandals. The world watches as the media follows them relentlessly for days, weeks, or even months and then evaporates, leaving behind a scene of complete and utter self-inflicted personal destruction. Some of these folks are often distraught to the point of suicide.

What the cameras don’t show is what happens after the hoopla dies down. Sometimes these folks turn inward and become bitter and permanently broken, but not always. The untold stories are the others, the ones who are open to healing and saving grace.

I had the privilege of reflecting on redemption not long ago through the eyes of a woman whose husband was recently the object of a very public humiliation. She spoke about the many, many acts of love and compassion that have been shown to their family.

Members of a local church congregation have come forward to help in tangible ways, but also by sharing their own stories of brokenness and the healing of Christ’s forgiveness and restoration. One woman texted my friend, “Call me, I can help you: signed a survivor of an international sex scandal.”

No one likes to remember their past mistakes, but when they are viewed in the context of sins atoned for by Christ’s sacrifice on the cross then they become only a chapter of a story of victory and healing, not the last chapter. In most cases, the final story is much more important than the earlier narrative.

I was shocked recently when my daughter confessed distaste at the fact that my dear friend and mentor, Chuck Colson, served time in prison.

My husband and I both laughed as she stared at us in confusion.

Taking advantage of a teachable moment, we were then able to point out to her that Colson’s disgrace led him to the foot of the Cross, and from there he has become one of the greatest Christian heroes of our time.

Without the public brokenness, Colson would have never become the man that God has used to minister to literally millions of people, many of whom are or were in prison.

That’s called Grace, and it is at the crux of the Easter story.

As Christians, we believe that Christ, the Son of God, died specifically not for “the righteous, but sinners.” Who is a sinner? Well, all of us. Every single one of us who has ever been unkind, lied, or been disobedient. Yes, all of it counts. He was the only sinless man ever born, and yet, He stepped in to take our punishment and, in the process, conquered sin and ultimately death. He rose to new life and indeed, through his atonement, offers a clean slate before a Holy God. That’s what Easter is all about.

I know it’s interesting to read and watch bad people “get theirs” or to even feel a sense of self-righteousness perhaps watching the lives of Hollywood elites and political figures come crashing down because of bad choices and dishonesty. But we need to remember that, “All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God.”

I stand with countless other broken humans over the millennia who claim Christ’s sacrifice for our sins. He is risen for all the people caught in scandals, and for those who were never caught, and for those who are just plain broken. I, like the Apostle Paul, stand with the sinners “of whom I am the chief.”

Jesus on the Cross took the punishment I deserve for my sins and now because of His resurrection I stand forgiven by His grace. He will do the same for you as He has done for other sinners just like us. He is risen indeed!

You might remember that Vought was viciously attacked for his Christian faith at his previous nomination hearings. Indeed, this reminds us the radical, anti-Christian left is now the mainstream of the Democratic Party, as it was Sen. Bernie Sanders (D-Vt.), a front-runner for his party’s presidential nomination, who led the attack.

President Trump fights a more significant battle than just this nomination by appointing him. He fights for the liberties of all Americans, regardless of faith.

Religious freedom is under attack on college campuses. Imagine being falsely told your First Amendment Rights don’t apply at a public university. That is the reality for many college students involved in faith-based clubs on campuses across the country.

The U.S. Department of Education has proposed a new rule on the Eligibility of Faith-Based Entities to provide religious freedom protections in higher education. The rule protects faith-based clubs on public campuses from discrimination and makes other improvements to ensure First Amendment rights in education.

There is a short turn around to comment with your support and help the President protect the rights of religious groups on campus before the deadline Tuesday.

This proposed rule is the regulatory form of the Equal Campus Access Act. Like the bill, this rule ensures students in faith-based groups receive equal access to public university resources and funds as other non-religious groups.

January 16 is Religious Freedom Day. It marks the anniversary of the passage of Thomas Jefferson’s Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, the precursor language of our First Amendment guarantee of religious freedom. This American ideal was born on Biblical soil. Freedom is impossible without faith. This is as true today as in the times of our founding. John Adams, the principal author of our Bill of Rights said:

The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence, were … the general principles of Christianity … Now I will avow, that I then believed, and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God; and that those principles of liberty are as unalterable as human nature and our terrestrial, mundane system …

Questions of faith are the questions of life. That is why religious freedom is known as our first freedom, listed first as the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. If we lose our religious freedom, we lose our freedoms.

President Donald J. Trump understands this, and he has been a champion of religious freedom since his first day in office. Just today the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) is proposing rules to further implement President Trump’s 2018 Executive Order removing regulatory burdens on religious organizations and ensuring they are treated equally under the law within the agency’s programs.

This is important work that will never get much attention in the mainstream media, but which protects people of faith from being forced to do the government’s bidding when it comes to things that violate their conscience, like abortion — a favorite area where the left wants to force pro-life people to actively engage in supporting.

Yesterday, the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) issued a memo aimed at protecting religious freedom in government grants at all levels. OMB Acting Director Russ Vought (himself a victim of religious discrimination) said, “No longer will faith-based organizations be bullied by the government, which has not done enough to ensure that religious groups are not discriminated against when receiving federal resources.”

The Department of Education is also taking serious steps to protect religious freedom and clarify the First Amendment’s protection of prayer in public schools. Secretary of Education Betsy DeVos said in a statement:

Our actions today will protect the constitutional rights of students, teachers, and faith-based institutions. The Department’s efforts will level the playing field between religious and non-religious organizations competing for federal grants, as well as protect First Amendment freedoms on campus and the religious liberty of faith-based institutions. I proudly share President Trump’s commitment to religious freedom and the First Amendment.

And that is just what the president has done recently. The president has also stood strong against the Johnson Amendment which has been used for decades to try to silence pastors’ political and cultural engagement. He has stood strong against anti-Semitism. He has also promoted religious freedom abroad.

[W]e reaffirm our commitment to protecting the precious and fundamental right of religious freedom, both at home and abroad. Our Founders entrusted the American people with a responsibility to protect religious liberty so that our Nation may stand as a bright beacon for the rest of the world. Today, we remain committed to that sacred endeavor and strive to support those around the world who still struggle under oppressive regimes that impose restrictions on freedom of religion.

Let us continue to pray for the President as he stands for religious freedom and let us support these efforts that are to the benefit of all freedom-loving peoples around the world, not just Christian or religious people.

Concerned Women for America’s International Affairs team consisting of Dr. Shea Garrison and Ashley Traficant, published an article in The Hillshowcasing how Anti-semitism is on the rise throughout the world.

“Jeremy Corbyn, the soon-to-be former leader of the U.K.’s Labour Party, was defeated in a landslide election last week.

But while Corbyn announced his resignation and Labour lost dozens of seats, the anti-Semitism of his party remains endemic throughout the United Kingdom and Europe. Seventy-five years after the Holocaust, anti-Semitism is on the rise.

Tel Aviv University cites a 13 percent increase in anti-Semitic attacks worldwide in 2018, with the U.S., U.K., France and Germany having the highest number of incidents.

According to a CNN survey, memories of the Holocaust are fading while anti-Semitic stereotypes flourish. Forty-four percent of Europeans think anti-Semitism is a growing problem. But 28 percent say it is a response to the actions of Israel, while 18 percent feel it is “a response to the everyday behavior of Jewish people,” meaning a sizeable portion of Europeans blame the victims of anti-Semitism for its increase.

German anti-Semitism commissioner Felix Klein has even warned that it may not be safe to wear a kippah (Jewish skullcap) in public in Germany. Germany has seen a 70 percent increase in violent acts against Jews since 2017, but not all instances of anti-Semitism are violent. Unaddressed resentment and hateful stereotypes can be precursors of violence.”

Last Sunday, 800,000 protestors took to the streets of Hong Kong, the largest pro-democracy demonstration yet. The number of demonstrators has steadily increased since the start of the protests six months ago with no sign of slowing down. This movement is so significant that despite ongoing trade negotiations with China, the Trump administration entered the fray to ensure China respects Hong Kong’s autonomy and fundamental right to protest.

Protests began in June in response to a new Beijing-backed extradition law that would have allowed people arrested in Hong Kong to be imprisoned in China. The first couple months of protests were peaceful and extraordinarily respectful, as demonstrators apologized to those inconvenienced by facilities closed due to the protests, even moving out of the way to allow emergency vehicles to maneuver through the massive crowds. They sang “Sing Hallelujah to the Lord” as their anthem.

Momentum swelled as a record number of people came out to vote in Hong Kong’s local elections in November despite the increase in police force and violence, including the shooting of two protestors. An astonishing 452 local seats flipped from pro-Beijing to pro-democracy officials, a significant and peaceful victory. Chinese President Xi dismissed this as “window dressing,” but it is impossible to ignore. The election could very well be a bellwether of changing times.

As Hong Kong protests and China waits, the United States is acting. President Trump signed into law Sen. Rubio’s (R-Florida) bill supporting the protestors and creating a U.S. congressional oversight mechanism to ensure China does not violate its agreement for Hong Kong to have autonomy at least until 2047.

Predictably, China was not thrilled. In response, the Chinese foreign minister Hua Chunying said China would no longer review requests for U.S. ships and aircraft to stop in Hong Kong.

To be clear, China generally does deny these requests; they are just announcing they won’t even look at the requests. This is more bark than bite.

Hong Kong is a Chinese territory that is supposed to have its own autonomous government. In 1997 the U.K. handed Hong Kong, its then colony, over to China under the agreement of “one country, two-systems” for the first 50 years. It is unknown what will happen after the year 2047.

The watching world exposes and puts a check on China. Between Beijing-backed police increasing violence towards protestors in Hong Kong and the concentration camps of around 1 million Uyghur Muslims, China’s violations of human rights are egregious and in the limelight.

Secretary Pompeo’s formation of the Commission on Unalienable Rights provides another mechanism by which China can be held to account. The commission’s purpose is to ground U.S. foreign policy on human rights in American’s founding principles of individual liberty. While the Commission is advisory, it will also help create a standard by which to measure the nations, exposing those, like China, who provide pseudo rights to veil their egregious violations of human rights.

Though the extradition law has been withdrawn, Hong Kong’s hunger for liberty has only grown. The world watches to see what action, if any, China might take. In the chaos one thing is clear, the United States stands with the people of Hong Kong as they fight for freedom.

President Trump just issued the new proposed rule that would reverse an Obama-era regulation that harmed faith-based adoption and foster care providers. This Obama “nondiscrimination” mandate, imposed just days before President Trump was inaugurated, jeopardized the status of faith-based adoption and foster care providers who work with adoptive and foster families who shared their beliefs. President Obama added categories to HHS nondiscrimination laws that require grant recipients to accept unorthodox, ideological views on gender and sexuality. The result has become government discrimination against faith-based providers used as a weapon for lawsuits and disqualifying them from serving families and children.

In the new rule, the Keep Kids First Rule, the Trump Administration has reversed this activist policy and clarified that discrimination laws enacted by Congress, not imposed by unelected bureaucrats, apply to adoption and foster care providers. The Administration’s effort to restore religious freedom and include all child welfare providers on the playing field is especially important as the need for loving families is on the rise.

Last Friday the Trump Administration announced its intention to reverse Obama-era regulations that have sidelined faith-based adoption and foster care agencies. CWA has been working with Congress and the Administration on this change for nearly two years!

President Obama added categories to nondiscrimination laws that require grant recipients to accept ideological views on gender and sexuality. Such government discrimination has been weaponized against faith-based providers – several are facing lawsuits; others have discontinued operations. The Administration’s effort to restore religious freedom and enable all qualified child welfare providers to be eligible for placing children in loving homes is especially important as the need for loving families is on the rise.

As with other proposed rules that represent major changes, like the Protect Life rule and the Conscience Care Rule, supportive comments of the new rules will be crucial! The timeline to comment will only be 30 days. We will need your help to get the word out. We are awaiting publication in the Federal Register this week before we are able to submit comments, and we will alert you as soon as the comment period begins!

“Conservative women understand the fundamental principles of liberty enshrined in the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. We are thankful for Members of Congress who are unwavering in their commitment to protect them from recurring threats. To compel someone, as the Washington Supreme Court did in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, to use her artistic expression to support something that violates her conscience and tenets of her faith is an anathema to the Founders intent and to our Constitutional principles. It simply must not stand.”

“Aimee Stephens is a transgender woman,” started the argument at the United States Supreme Court in R.G. & G.R.Harris Funeral Homes v. EEOC, where Stephens is asking the Court to include “gender identity” within the definition of “sex” discrimination in federal civil rights law (specifically Title VII, the employment context in this case) . With that simple statement David Cole of the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), who represented Stephens, glossed over the most important fact to remember in this debate. Aimee Stephens is biologically a man. Aimee undoubtedly feels like a woman and has decided to live as a transgender woman. But the biological fact (reality) remains.

This is why, it is no violation of civil rights, to ask Aimee to use the men’s bathroom or at least to refrain from using the women’s bathroom (in many cases a single stall, private bathroom is available). Aimee is scientifically a man. If someone like Aimee wishes to enter athletic competitions, there is a place for males to compete against other male athletes. For someone like Aimee to demand to compete among female athletes is a great injustice to those who in fact are female.

This is plain for all to see. It is not bigotry.

The reality is most people empathize and even identify with the conflict between Aimee’s biology and psyche at some level. Most people in the U.S. would stand against harassment or beratement directed at Aimee. The great majority would fight against those wishing Aimee harm.

But the reality, once again, is that that is not enough for Aimee and most vocal transgender individuals. In their mind, to say they are not the sex they identify with is to discriminate against them. This is why we are seeing a push for laws that demand we refer to them as the pronoun of their choice.

Mr. Cole at oral arguments tried as hard as he could to say that that was not the issue in the case. He danced around multiple questions from Chief Justice Roberts on the issue of bathrooms, ultimately admitting to Justice Neil Gorsuch that it would be harmful to ask transgenders to follow sex-specific bathroom rules.

JUSTICE GORSUCH: “… but ultimately came to, I believe, a submission that a reasonable person in the transgender plaintiff’s position would be harmed if he or she were fired for failing to follow the bathroom rules or some sort of dress code that’s not otherwise objectionable …”

COLE: “Yeah.”

Mr. Cole’s effort to avoid the issue was so blatant, Justice Sonia Sotomayor, one of the most liberal voice on the Court, called him out on it.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “Mr. Cole, let’s not avoid the difficult issue, okay? You have a transgender person who rightly is identifying as a woman and wants to use the women’s bedroom, rightly, wrongly, not a moral choice, but this is what they identify with. Their need is genuine. I’m accepting all of that –­

COLE: Yeah.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: –and they want to use the women’s bathroom. But there are other women who are made uncomfortable, and not merely uncomfortable, but who would feel intruded upon if someone who still had male characteristics walked into their bathroom. That’s why we have different bathrooms.

So, the hard question is how do we deal with that? And what in the law will guide judges in balancing those things? That’s really what I think the question is about.

Still, the ACLU attorney refused to acknowledge reality. “Well, that is –that is -­that is a question, Justice Sotomayor. It is not the question in this case.”

That is the sort of unreasonable halt to logic the Court would need to do to go along with the LGBTQ-affirming demands in this case.

Both Justice Samuel Alito and Ruth Bader Ginsburg tried to engage Mr. Cole in the discussion of women’s athletics (under Title IX). Round and round Mr. Cole went to avoid the issue, knowing, as we all do, the disastrous consequences for women if he were to win in this case. There are no consequences according to the way he argued the case. The hundreds of thousands of people expressing concerns, including Judge Gerard Lynch of the Second Circuit are just hysterically overreacting.

Judge Lynch supports LGBTQ protections but acknowledged the text of Title VII does not include sexual orientation and gender identity under the word “sex.” “Congress did no such thing,” he acknowledged painfully in his dissenting opinion on the case.

There was no such consideration on behalf of the arguing attorney, and in fact, there was no such introspection on behalf of the liberal side of the Court. Justice Sotomayor tried to hold it in for most of the argument but finally, let it out at the conclusion of arguments.

JUSTICE SOTOMAYOR: “May I just ask, at what point does a court continue to permit invidious discrimination against groups that, where we have a difference of opinion, we believe the language of the statute is clear. I think Justice Breyer was right that Title VII, the Civil Rights Act, all of our acts were born from the desire to ensure that we treated people equally and not on the basis of invidious reasons.”

Did you notice the shift? The text of the statute means nothing really. Passion rules. It appears Judge Sotomayor is ready to make “sex” mean whatever they feel like, as long as she perceives “invidious reasons.”

Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan all seemed open to the idea of manipulating the text as needed. We can only hope they realize the consequences beyond personal passion.

Though there are forceful emotions involved in this case, and even difficult cases left unaddressed where legislation is needed, the judicial action demanded is deference to the legislative branch who has not included sexual orientation and gender identity under Title VII. And, were they to do so, would have to inevitably consider the many examples of significant harm to women’s rights that the LGBTQ-affirming side refuses to acknowledge.

John Bursch, of the Alliance Defending Freedom, who argued on behalf of Harris Funeral Homes, said it plainly, “Treating women and men equally does not mean employers have to treat men as women. That is because sex and transgender status are independent concepts.”

Noel Francisco, arguing as Solicitor General, agreed, “There’s a reason why when Congress wants to prohibit discrimination based on the traits of sexual orientation and gender identity, it lists them separately. It doesn’t define sex as including these traits.”

That should be the end of the inquiry here. This is a legislative matter, not a judicial one, and the Court should resist the temptation to engage in judicial activism, as it has done in the past with disastrous consequences.

—Mario Diaz, Esq. is CWA’s general counsel. Follow him on Twitter @mariodiazesq.

“On Tuesday, the US Supreme Court heard three major cases that could affect a wide swath of the American population.

At the core of these cases is what does the word “sex” means when it comes to law. In 1964, when it first became illegal to discriminate on the basis of sex, it meant “male” and “female.” Now, at least one side in these cases is arguing it should be a bit more complicated: gender identity and sexual orientation should be included.

The cases involve two homosexuals and one transgender fired from their jobs. Gerald Bostock is one of the gay men.

He said outside the court after his case was heard, “Millions and millions of people go to work every day fearful for being fired for who they are, how they identify and who they love. And that’s wrong.””

“We are Christian women, mothers of college students and college-bound children, who have serious concerns about how the “gender fluidity” movement has taken root at public schools and universities.

The idea that gender is fluid and self-determined, as opposed to biologically determined, has been germinating for decades. But today it has grown into a multi-million dollar political cause that threatens the privacy, safety, and religious freedom of all students, and especially women.

One of us, Penny Nance, President and CEO of Concerned Women for America (CWA), in a recent op-ed, gave a first hand account of how students, beginning at orientation, are being indoctrinated into this anti-Christian ideology at Virginia Tech (VT), the hard science school of the Commonwealth of Virginia.

The response was overwhelming. CWA received emails from many VT students, parents, employees, professors, alumni, and state elected officials upset about the indoctrination. Many complained of coercive “diversity training” and policies. Some students reported fear of reprisal, and some school employees fear job loss. Many feel bullied into silence and believe their First Amendment rights are being infringed. The school is opening itself up to a variety of lawsuits.

VT’s response has been to post their mantra regarding civility, saying students were not forced to share their pronouns. But coercion comes in many forms, and the pressure is palpable. It is sad to say, but if you express traditional Christian beliefs at VT, you will be left outside of the community. Of course, VT is far from alone in this new woke trajectory.”

“The Trump administration led the fight for human rights at the U.N. General Assembly last week, calling out China for forced internment of more than 1 million Uighurs in “training camps” to be “re-educated” and “saved” from their culture, language and faith.

According to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, China is the perpetrator of “the worst human rights crises of our time.” China denies this, touting itself a defender of human rights by providing “development, health, nutrition, and housing” — its own “approach” to human rights that has nothing to do with individual freedoms.

China’s approach is not surprising given that international human rights advocacy is so “watered down” by political agenda that it’s hard to tell the difference between protecting God-given natural rights and government entitlements.

To help rectify this, Mr. Pompeo recently announced the U.S. Commission on Unalienable Rights to ground U.S. foreign policy on human rights in America’s founding principles of individual dignity and freedom. The Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, as well as the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), are guides for the commission.”

Natasha Chart, Board Chair of Women’s Liberation Front and Penny Nance, CEO & President of Concerned Women for America wrote an open letter to Dr. Timothy Sands, President of Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University asking him to meet with them to discuss eroding women’s rights on college campuses.

“America will always be a voice for victims of religious persecution everywhere,” he said to the applause of the attendees, “No matter where you go, you have a place in the United States of America.”

Listening to the president, one can’t help but wonder who is the man being demonized every moment of every day by the news media? The president spoke of the fundamental truths upon which our country was founded:

The United States is founded on the principle that our rights do not come from government; they come from God. This immortal truth is proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence and enshrined in the First Amendment to our Constitution’s Bill of Rights. Our Founders understood that no right is more fundamental to a peaceful, prosperous, and virtuous society than the right to follow one’s religious convictions.

Those inalienable rights that government can’t take away because it does not grant them are the foundation of religious freedom. Those are the sort of human rights on which the United Nations (UN) is supposed to focus, but that have been so blatantly neglected. The president highlighted the problem, “Regrettably, the religious freedom enjoyed by American citizens is rare in the world. Approximately 80 percent of the world’s population live in countries where religious liberty is threatened, restricted, or even banned.”

The president expressed disbelief when he first heard the 80 percent statistic, as most people would. But it is correct. Two hundred and fifty million Christians around the world are experiencing persecution today. We’ve all witnessed a surprising rise in anti-Semitism in recent years. The president spoke of appointing “a special envoy to monitor and combat anti-Semitism.”

He expressed his commitment to protect people of all religious faiths, “These evil attacks are a wound on all humanity. We must all work together to protect communities of every faith.”

And that is the most impressive thing about the Trump presidency. More than the inspiring speech, the president has put action behind every word he’s said on this topic. He highlighted some of the things his administration has done:

In this year’s ministerial [a first-of-its-kind religious freedom meeting also created under President Trump], Secretary Pompeo announced plans to create the International Religious Freedom Alliance — an alliance of likeminded nations devoted to confronting religious persecution all around the world …

We’re also urging every nation to increase the prosecution and punishment of crimes against religious communities …

The United States is forming a coalition of U.S. businesses for the protection of religious freedom. This is the first time this has been done. This initiative will encourage the private sector to protect people of all faiths in the workplace.

This last coalition he mentions is yet another ground-breaking effort that comes at a crucial moment in our history. President Trump shows he understands what is at stake. He said, “Too often, people in positions of power preach diversity while silencing, shunning, or censoring the faithful. True tolerance means respecting the right of all people to express their deeply held religious beliefs.”

The president’s leadership on this issue at home is praiseworthy. And his call to the rest of the world was no less inspiring:

Today, with one clear voice, the United States of America calls upon the nations of the world to end religious persecution …

To stop the crimes against people of faith, release prisoners of conscience, repeal laws restricting freedom of religion and belief, protect the vulnerable, the defenseless, and the oppressed, America stands with believers in every country who ask only for the freedom to live according to the faith that is within their own hearts.

When the president speaks in this manner, he truly speaks for all Americans. Religious freedom has always been a unifying force in our land, and we pray that it may spread around the world.